JUDGMENT K.N. Misra J. 1. This first appeal from order is directed against the judgment and decree dated 141277 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow by which the learned District Judge has refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant appellants as time barred. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Sri Hashmat Ali, the plaintiff respondent filed a suit being regular suit no. 70 of 1974 for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife Rizwana Zameer and others. It is evident from the record that on 2575 since the defendants were not served and, as such, the case was adjourned directing the summons to be issued to the defendants fixing 16875 for written statement and 22875 for framing of issues. On 22875 the plaintiff moved an application under order V Rule XX CPC seeking order of the court for substituted service on the defendants. This application was allowed and the defendants were directed to serve through publication, fixing 281075 for written statement and 71175 for framing of issues. It appears that publication of the summons was made as per orders of the court dated 22875. However, when the case was taken up for hearing on 71175 it was dismissed in default because the plaintiff did not appear. Thereupon, the plaintiff applied for restoration of the suit and this application was allowed vide order dated I 51175 and the case was restored and was ordered to be registered to its original number. After restoration of the suit it was decreed exparte vide judgment and decree dated 10976, a copy of which was filed by the plaintiff on 101176 in the pending case u/s 488 Cr PC. The defendant appellant, thereupon, filed an appeal against the said exparte decree in the court of the District Judge on 111176. The certified copy of the judgment and decree could not be filed alongwith the appeal and the same was subsequently filed. The learned District Judge rejected the appeal being timebarred by 19 days. The defendant appellant, thereupon, filed an appeal against the said exparte decree in the court of the District Judge on 111176. The certified copy of the judgment and decree could not be filed alongwith the appeal and the same was subsequently filed. The learned District Judge rejected the appeal being timebarred by 19 days. It was asserted on behalf of the plaintiffrespondent before the learned District Judge that the defendants had full knowledge about the pendency of the suit as this fact was mentioned by him in the written statement dated 281074 filed by him in the case pending u/s 488 Cr PC and also during the crossexamination of the appellant and this fact was also made known to her and her father during the course of their statements on 23775 and 25775 respectively in the aforesaid case. The learned District Judge had refused to condone the delay apparently on the ground that the defendant appellant had the knowledge about the pendency of the suit. Aggrieved by this judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, the defendant appellants have filed this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pradeep Kant, urged that no summons were served personally on the defendantappellant after it was restored and as such if any knowledge about the pendency of the suit earlier to that date, it could not be made a ground of refusing to condone the delay. Having perused the record of the case I find much substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. It is evident that the suit was dismissed in default on 71175. Subsequently summons were not personally served on the defendants and the case was decided ex parte on the basis of the substitutedservice by publication. The defendant appellant filed an appeal on 111176 when they came to know about the ex parte decree dated 10976 in the proceedings u/s 488 Cr PC. It is, thus, evident that the appellants had hurriedly proceeded to file the appeal as soon as they came to know about the ex parte decree passed against them on 10976, No want of negligence or lack of bona fide can be attributed to the defendant appellants and,, as such, merely delay of 19 days in filing the appeal should have been condoned by the learned District Judge and the appeal should have: been decided on merits. The fact regarding pendency of the suit mentioned in the written statement dated 231074 and also during the course of crossexamination of the appellant and her father made on 23775 and 25775 respectively, could not be made a ground for refusing to condone the delay because the plaintiff's suit was itself dismissed on 71175 and was restored on 101175. Thus, the earlier knowledge about the pendency of the suit could not be enough ground for refusing to condone the delay. It appears that the defendant appellant came to know about the exparte decree passed on 10976 only on 101176 when a copy of the judgment was filed in the proceedings u/s 488 Cr PC and they filed the appeal the very next date on 111176. The impugned order passed by the learned district judge, therefore, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 5. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 14121977 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow, in regular Civil Appeal no. 112 of 1976 is set aside and the appeal is directed to be restored and decided on merits, according to law. No order as to costs. (Appeal allowed)